Posts in "Noninterventionism"

What if I told you there’s a government program which will cost taxpayers more than Obamacare will over the next ten years?

What if that program was just one function of a sprawling government agency which has not been audited in two decades?

What if that agency was the third-largest contributor to our $17 trillion national debt, which breaks down to $55,000 per citizen?

What if the same agency wasted tens of billions of dollars annually on projects and goods unrelated to its mission? (Like a study on “whether men holding pistols are viewed as taller, stronger and more masculine than those wielding objects such as saws, paint brushes and caulking guns.” Or “a conference that included a session titled ‘Did Jesus Die for Klingons too?’” Or “research on what the behavior of fish can teach us about democracy.”)

What if it also regularly paid hundreds of times the market value for commonplace items?

And squandered billions more on outdated equipment which just doesn’t work?

And prioritized cuts in vital programs rather than big-budget flops?

And lost hundreds of millions to waste and corruption in foreign programs?

And destroyed valuable equipment rather than repurposing it?

And blew big bucks on cross-promotions with superhero movies?

And gave high-dollar contracts to companies known to engage in fraud—contracts totaling more than $1 trillion in the last ten years?

And built buildings which will never be occupied?

And reported to Congress that it simply couldn’t account for $1 trillion (yes, trillion) it had spent?

And yet it still plans to spend the equivalent of the entire GDP of Sweden on a single purchase over the course of the next fifteen years?

What if this agency regularly and intentionally doctored the books to hide these wasteful practices from taxpayers?

For any fiscal conservative, the conclusion must be that this incredibly wasteful, deceptive, and nonproductive government agency is seriously overdue for audits, possibly criminal charges, and huge—massive—ginormous spending cuts. Right?

This is the final section of a four-part essay series hosted here on the YAL blog which addresses the alliances between the US government and sponsors of international terrorism. Read Part 3 here.

Critical Mass and Critical Awakening

The liberty-minded position on foreign policy—free trade, no entangling alliances, justice for war crimes against the republic, and general peaceful interstate relations—must reach a critical mass of consent. Though support for America minding her own business internationally is on the rise, unfortunately noninterventionism still gets comparatively little attention within the marketplace of ideas.

As I discussed in previous sections of this series, neoconservatives continue to insist that boots must be put on the ground in order to prevent ISIL from having a safe haven from which they can launch attacks against NATO allies. Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, and a host of other discredited pundits and former power brokers insist on making the same old arguments for endless war. I feel safe in stating that their proposals are not going to be taken seriously nor will they be implemented under any foreseeable scenario.

Another shockingly maudlin variant of this position goes something like this: "Will we allow the investment that our veterans, servicemen and women made on the battlefields, to be in vain? Will we also allow those who died for our freedoms to have died in vain? We must go back over there to make things right and also make sure terrorists don’t use it as a base to launch attacks against Americans."

In my view, this position is a shameless, trite piece of emotional appeal. It is hard for words to express the vile nature of this sentiment.

After all the dead Americans who volunteered to unwittingly take part in a war built on lies? After all the dead Iraqis—Shi’a, Sunni, Christian, and more—visited with a battle of kill or be killed, under false pretense? Will we allow those who died under false pretext for a foreign war that was unjustifiable and criminal to…die in vain?

The sad, sad irony here is too sharp for words to express. The tragic results of this war built on lies cannot be remedied by sending more men, women, and children to early graves in pursuit of an unreachable goal.

Resolve to serve no more

Noninterventionism, the truly foreign policy of a free people, has long since made its debut in the marketplace of ideas. It is incumbent on we who are able to do what

This is the third of a four-part essay series hosted here on the YAL blog which will address the alliances between the US government and sponsors of international terrorism. Read Part 2 here, and stay tuned for the next two parts, which will publish daily this week.

Foreign policy accountability?

At every turn, American foreign policy has provoked, emboldened, and given aid and comfort to organizations linked to (if not identical with) the very terrorists we're ostensibly fighting. My knee-jerk reaction to this travesty is to seek justice and accountability for the war crimes committed against the general population of all the various and sundry Middle Eastern Nations and seek some sort of domestic justice for the volunteer American military forces who have been exploited under false pretenses.

Court martial proceedings for military leadership who carried out such orders under false pretense should be sought. Leadership from the Bush and Obama Administrations should be indicted. If the testimony of politicians and military men like General Wesley Clarke, who has stated that this destabilization policy was indeed an intentional policy, make certain that these are not only war crimes, but high crimes and misdemeanors against the American republic.

Yet, this is an uncommon view. For any of this to come to fruition, the cause of justice must reach a critical mass of support. Perhaps a simpler approach would be to pressure candidates for office and relevant government agencies to pledge to reform the war making authority.

There's a widely-watched video in which then-Congressman Ron Paul questioned former Secretary of State James Baker on this type of reform:

Paul's questions—and Baker’s answers—leave little room for doubt that the executive branch’s power to make war is in practice near-absolute.Of course, as the Obama Administration's Syrian "red line" indicated, even the all-powerful executive cannot withstand serious public opposition. Only a frank national discussion about executive power can

This is the second of a four-part essay series hosted here on the YAL blog which will address the alliances between the US government and sponsors of international terrorism. Read Part 1 here, and stay tuned for the next two parts, which will publish daily this week.

The Saudis' walk alone?

The connection between the Saudi government and terrorist organizations was a rule was not discussed during the preparations for war with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, or Afghanistan. Indeed, if the same scrutiny had been given to the real information about Saudi connections to terror networks as was given tothe false information used as a pretext for war with Iraq, then history may have played out quite differently.

Instead, the United States has over the past 20 years brokered record defense and armament deals with the House of Saud. In 2010, for example, a record $60 billion arms deal was brokered between the Obama Administration and the Saudi Arabia. Then, in 2013, when the United States did not follow through with war against the Assad regime, the House of Saud unilaterally and openly supported the Syrian rebels, the Free Syrian Army, who until recently were allied with ISIL (previously known as ISIS), the radical group disavowed by even al-Qaeda which is now sweeping through Iraq.

It should also be noted that based on reports from hostages and reporters on the ground, the distinction between members of the Free Syrian Army and International jihadist forces are exceedingly unclear. Some have even gone so far as to infer that the Free Syrian Army, supported by US ally Saudi Arabia, is nothing more than a front group for outright terrorist organizations.

Is it too much of a stretch to say that, through the Saudi arms deal and similar support, the US government/NATO have essentially funded terrorism while providing themselves with plausible deniability? Senator Rand Paul has made precisely this charge:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that the Sunni militants taking over Iraq have quickly gained power because the United States armed their allies in Syria.

“I think we have to understand first how we got here,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” "I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria."

Yet the duplicitous nature of these deals don't stop here—learning from experience is not Washington's style. The State Department has brokered a

This is the first of a four-part essay series hosted here on the YAL blog which will address the alliances between the US government and sponsors of international terrorism. Stay tuned for the next three parts, which will publish daily this week.

Recent events in Iraq have created a furor in the media and have unsettled many Americans who have devoted precious time and energy to the War in Iraq.

Journalists and media personalities have made a lot of noise about what is going on there and the many angles to this story cite the failed foreign policy of the Obama Administration, the failures of the Bush Administration, and the false pretext of making the war an unfortunate reality. Some say we should not redeploy any forces to the area; some say our military is unable to redeploy even if it wanted to; and the situation is complicated, to say the least.

In my humble opinion—and I do not profess to have all the answers—this line of reasoning is a provocative and outrageous position. It defies logic. Taking this position a full 11 years after the same rationale was falselyused to promote preemptive military action against Saddam Hussein offers an irony so sharp, it is difficult to discuss… but I digress.

Yet what is important to discuss is how United States foreign policy has gone so wrong. How has the US found itself

During the conquest of Alexander the Great, he and his mighty army came across a lone pirate and captured him. Alexander personally confronted the pirate and asked him, "What wickedness drives you to harass the entire sea with your single ship?" The pirate looked up at Alexander and said, "The same wickedness that impels you to harass the world."

The extent and reach of the United States into foreign cultures, societies and governments is at the forefront of American foreign policy debates. I am not very knowledgeable and mathematically skilled to research numbers pertaining to the expense of the United States operations abroad, nor will I argue here the successes and failures of these operations. Rather, today I will argue two simple principles pertaining to the proper role of government in regards to foreign policy:

1. It is an inherent right that countries hold to defend their interests abroad — to protect their economic interests, national defense, and to stand aside their allies in times of crisis.

The question that I pose is: Why wasn't anyone aware that Qur'ans were being burned? If they were being disposed of for the fact that there were radical writings in them as some have claimed, why were the Qur'ans not picked apart by translators and preserved as intelligence or evidence to indict militants (not to say I believe in the conflict or the means utilized in it)?

This seems like too big an oversight by the military, and in my opinion, not merely a mistake. This mistake has turned into a liability in which Americans and Afghans have died, not something to be taken lightly in today's world. Care should have been taken to realize what was being put into the burn pile, especially in such a sensitive religious environment.

What do Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen have in common, besides being places you're not considering for your next family vacation? They're all active American war zones! (Or, as the Obama administration would refer to them, "war" zones.) Fighting all of these wars and "wars" at the same time, after so many years of endless combat, has taken its toll on the American public. According to a poll by the Hill newspaper, a whopping 72 percent of likely voters say that "the United States is fighting in too many places." As for our most deadly conflict, only 36 percent say that our presence in Afghanistan is making the United States safer, a figure that includes only 45 percent of Republicans.

Much of this sentiment may have more to do with the problems of a war economy than principle, but it's still great news.